Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use next_node blocks in state-pension-through-partner #2105

Merged

Conversation

chrisroos
Copy link
Contributor

We've agreed to consistently use next_node {} to define our next node rules. Having a single way of defining the rules will hopefully make Smart Answers easier to develop and maintain.

This will ultimately allow us to remove the predicate code (define_predicate, on_condition, next_node_if etc).

@floehopper floehopper self-assigned this Nov 17, 2015
@floehopper
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM 👍

I've replaced `define_predicate` with `next_node_calculation` in an attempt to
keep the code as similar as possible. I've had to update the names used by
`next_node_calculation` as the question marks cause problems when the state
object is converted to a hash in preparation for rendering the ERB templates.
I've replaced `define_predicate` with `next_node_calculation` in an attempt to
keep the code as similar as possible. I've had to update the names used by
`next_node_calculation` as the question marks cause problems when the state
object is converted to a hash in preparation for rendering the ERB templates.
@chrisroos chrisroos force-pushed the use-next-node-blocks-in-state-pension-through-partner branch from 213e329 to 781f9fa Compare November 18, 2015 10:08
chrisroos added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 18, 2015
…pension-through-partner

Use next_node blocks in state-pension-through-partner
@chrisroos chrisroos merged commit 4a2ad8d into master Nov 18, 2015
@chrisroos chrisroos deleted the use-next-node-blocks-in-state-pension-through-partner branch November 18, 2015 10:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants